Poll: What power should a poster have over their posts

[Cold]

Additional: I'd remove the ability for users to delete their posts, but maintain unlimited editability. If they want their post gone, they can edit it to say "[Deleted by poster]" or similar. If they were quoted by others, them's the breaks.

This is how I've seen the vast majority of other fora operate. While a very generous time limit...say...3 months, might work, I've never seen unlimited edit-ability become a problem (the timestamp and quotes out the sneaky ones).

One thing that no forum should allow is for a regular (non-mod) user to have the power to delete the posts of other users, for any reason. This forum allows that, which is why I almost never post. I like to learn from my participation, and when I return to reference something and it's gone, that's frustrating.

 

[tunalegs]

This is how I've seen the vast majority of other fora operate. While a very generous time limit...say...3 months, might work, I've never seen unlimited edit-ability become a problem (the timestamp and quotes out the sneaky ones).

One thing that no forum should allow is for a regular (non-mod) user to have the power to delete the posts of other users, for any reason. This forum allows that, which is why I almost never post. I like to learn from my participation, and when I return to reference something and it's gone, that's frustrating.

Nobody can delete other user's posts except in one specific situation, where they delete their own thread. Which almost never happens.

Because of the way forum software works it would be difficult to have somebody delete the original post, but leave the rest of the thread behind. They could either edit the original post to remove whatever it was they posted, or have a moderator split the thread and then delete the original post after it had been separated from the thread.

 

[brbo]

Nobody can delete other user's posts except in one specific situation, where they delete their own thread. Which almost never happens

Thousands of posts were deleted because of this, though.

Nuclear holocaust doesn't need to happen twice a day to become a problem, right?!

(not that I think RFF is as important, but it does have it's value)

 

[tunalegs]

Thousands of posts were deleted because of this, though.

Nuclear holocaust doesn't need to happen twice a day to become a problem, right?!

(not that I think RFF is as important, but it does have it's value)

Start a new thread then. A lot easier than creating a new city.

 

[DNG]

I find it odd the the thread starter can "Move", "Copy", and "Delete" the entire thread... as a MOD on anther camera site, only I can do that (or Lock it)... the member can only edit their posts... But, it is unlimited on the time limit.

 

[splitimageview]

Nobody can delete other user's posts except in one specific situation, where they delete their own thread. Which almost never happens.

It happens quite often with minor threads that few people see. This generally isn't a problem as there are rational reasons why these are deleted, and no brouhaha results since very few even notice.

When it happens with major threads, by the semi-unhinged, all heck breaks loose. 🙂

Cooler heads should prevail, this should be a mod's job, IMHO. Otherwise the unhinged have too much control over content.

If everyone were rational and thinking clearly, there would be no need for mods.

 

[tunalegs]

It happens quite often with minor threads that few people see. This generally isn't a problem as there are rational reasons why these are deleted, and no brouhaha results since very few even notice.

When it happens with major threads, by the semi-unhinged, all heck breaks loose. 🙂

Cooler heads should prevail, this should be a mod's job, IMHO. Otherwise the unhinged have too much control over content.

If everyone were rational and thinking clearly, there would be no need for mods.

Clear thinking should point out to you that it makes no sense to remove a convenience that benefits the forum more often than it hurts it. 😉

 

[splitimageview]

Is the frequency of use of more value than preserving content?

If there is a thread with hundreds or thousands of posts that gets arbitrarily deleted by a malcontent, imagine all the hundreds (or thousands) of man hours thrown away in an instant.

As long as the admins can resurrect all such threads, I suppose all is well.

Otherwise, why have mods at all? Let it be a free for all. 🙂

 

[tunalegs]

Is the frequency of use of more value than preserving content?

Reasonably so.

If there is a thread with hundreds or thousands of posts that gets arbitrarily deleted by a malcontent, imagine all the hundreds (or thousands) of man hours thrown away in an instant.

As long as the admins can resurrect all such threads, I suppose all is well.

Otherwise, why have mods at all? Let it be a free for all. 🙂

I think it's probably more mature to recognize that the vast majority of us are adults, and fully capable of handing our own posts. It doesn't really make much sense to act as though moderators need to spoon feed everybody because one person who isn't even a member of the forum anymore can't handle their own thread in a way that pleases other members.

Of course if everybody really is seriously doubting their own capacity to decide whether or not to delete their own posts, then perhaps the mods should become babysitters for our own safety! :angel: (not that I'd wish that on them)

 

[brbo]

Clear thinking should point out to you that it makes no sense to remove a convenience that benefits the forum more often than it hurts it. 😉

What are the benefits?

So far we've heard "just because" and "world peace" as the reasons for allowing deletion (instead of only editing). Anything else?

 

[splitimageview]

Reasonably so.

I think it's probably more mature to recognize that the vast majority of us are adults, and fully capable of handing our own posts. It doesn't really make much sense to act as though moderators need to spoon feed everybody because one person who isn't even a member of the forum anymore can't handle their own thread in a way that pleases other members.

Not sure what you mean by 'more mature.' Perhaps that best way to evaluate the situation is to be 'realistic.'

Actually, *all* of us are adults. However, as has been witnessed, not all of us are rational.

It's the irrational ones that cause the problems, and there are now three long threads discussing the aftermath of the latest firebombing. 🙂

Of course if everybody really is seriously doubting their own capacity to decide whether or not to delete their own posts, then perhaps the mods should become babysitters for our own safety! :angel: (not that I'd wish that on them)

What are mods here for anyway? To keep the site safe from all the rational members?

 

[tunalegs]

Not sure what you mean by 'more mature.' Perhaps that best way to evaluate the situation is to be 'realistic.'

Actually, *all* of us are adults. However, as has been witnessed, not all of us are rational.

It's the irrational ones that cause the problems, and there are now three long threads discussing the aftermath of the latest firebombing. 🙂

Good for them? The majority seems to favor everybody keeping their ability to manage their own posts though as evidenced by the poll in this thread.

What are mods here for anyway? To keep the site safe from all the rational members?

I'm afraid I don't see why you want to drag the mods into the discussion. Unless you're suggesting the majority of users here aren't rational.

 

[splitimageview]

Good for whom?

It's rather obvious: if everyone behaved, there would be no reason for mods, right?

I'm not 'dragging mods into anything', just pointing out that it's the few, the proud, the toublemakers that need addressing. Not the vast majority of the even-tempered who voted in the poll. 🙂

Nothing is going to change, I just hope that the admins continue to resurrect threads as-needed.

 

[tunalegs]

Good for whom?

It's rather obvious: if everyone behaved, there would be no reason for mods, right?

I'm not 'dragging mods into anything', just pointing out that it's the few, the proud, the toublemakers that need addressing. Not the vast majority of the even-tempered who voted in the poll. 🙂

Nothing is going to change, I just hope that the admins continue to resurrect threads as-needed.

The mods can handle the few, as they've ably demonstrated. So I don't understand the call by some to restrict everybody on account of the few. 😕 It doesn't really make any sense to restrict every rational member on account of the (very) few who cannot handle their own posts in a way that pleases other members.

 

[ferider]

We have currently 47 voters that want to keep the status quo and 51 that want to limit the individual's deletion power somehow.

Can we find a compromise ? I for one agree that longer threads should remain, independent of the OP (I have started 35 such threads, BTW). On the other hand, I would like to keep the flexibility to delete threads within a day or two because they are being troll'ed.

What's the right middle ground ?

Roland.

 

[splitimageview]

It's not about 'sense' it's about the preferences of the site owner.

The choices are:

(a) have members request deletions on occasion. This leaves the decision making up to a (hopefully) even-tempered and rational mod, instead of a potentially unhinged malcontent with scorched-earth intent.

(b) allow members to delete on their own, and clean up resultant messes (if any) after the fact.

The choice was made a long time ago and it won't change.

 

[ferider]

There is also (c), Robert, allow deletion only within a certain time period.

 

[Cold]

Nobody can delete other user's posts except in one specific situation, where they delete their own thread. Which almost never happens.

Except that it happens all the time.

Clear thinking should point out to you that it makes no sense to remove a convenience that benefits the forum more often than it hurts it.

Except that it doesn't. And quite often, it harms more than it benefits, when great, informative exchanges are wiped out because of one dissatisfied user who gets the mod-privelege of deleting the posts of others just because their's was the first in the thread.

Of course if everybody really is seriously doubting their own capacity to decide whether or not to delete their own posts, then perhaps the mods should become babysitters for our own safety!

Counterpoint: By that rationale, each and every person that posts a reply to any thread started by a non-mod must, by definition, lack the capacity to decide whether or not to delete their own posts, because they cede that power, in part, to whoever started the thread.

It doesn't really make much sense to act as though moderators need to spoon feed everybody because one person who isn't even a member of the forum anymore can't handle their own thread in a way that pleases other members.

How is it spoonfeeding?

So rather than just allowing users to edit their own posts, it's preferable to allow someone who isn't even a member of the forum anymore to delete the content posted by others? How does that make any sense?

The majority seems to favor everybody keeping their ability to manage their own posts though as evidenced by the poll in this thread.

Except that the poll somehow managed to neatly avoid the true heart of the issue.

The fact that the recent events have led to such active discussion and criticism among the community suggests to me that it's an issue that is a significant concern to a significant portion of the users.

I'm afraid I don't see why you want to drag the mods into the discussion. Unless you're suggesting the majority of users here aren't rational.

Two things:

1) If you want to nitpick about mods, you were the one who "dragged them into the discussion" with your babysitter comment.

2) If each thread author effectively has the ability to moderate their own threads, deleting the posts of others for any reason, regardless of site rules, what other purpose do the mods serve? The whole point of a moderation staff is to keep things running smoothly, and 'running smoothly' is something that isn't happening when any normal-level user deletes the posts of others for selfish reasons.

 

[tunalegs]

Two things:

1) If you want to nitpick about mods, you were the one who "dragged them into the discussion" with your babysitter comment.

Except I didn't, and you may want to read more of the thread before suggesting I did.

2) If each thread author effectively has the ability to moderate their own threads, deleting the posts of others for any reason, regardless of site rules, what other purpose do the mods serve? The whole point of a moderation staff is to keep things running smoothly, and 'running smoothly' is something that isn't happening when any normal-level user deletes the posts of others for selfish reasons.

Except that thread authors do not have the ability to moderate. They can only delete other people's posts if they delete their own thread.

The OP for instance cannot edit your post, or close the thread. A mod has to do that. They can only delete your post - as a consequence of deleting their own thread. So clearly moderators are still needed to moderate threads. 🙂

 

[Cold]

Except that thread authors do not have the ability to moderate. They can only delete other people's posts if they delete their own thread.

The OP for instance cannot edit your post, or close the thread. A mod has to do that. They can only delete your post - as a consequence of deleting their own thread. So clearly moderators are still needed to moderate threads.

Deletion of content constitutes moderation.

If another user can delete my posts, for any reason, they have the power to moderate my content.

To me, that's a problem.

And that's why I almost never post here. If the staff doesn't value the contributions of the community enough to protect those contributions from the whims of other users, I'm not interested.

I've posted more on these threads about this subject more than I have on any other photography-related threads for this reason alone.

Except I didn't, and you may want to read more of the thread before suggesting I did.

You may not have been the first to mention them, but when someone responded to your comment was the time you chose to make their mention an issue.